CAT/C/54/D/476/2011 complainant’s claims, particularly concerning the dangers he faced following the attempted coup of March 2006. 4.8 The State party concludes that, on the basis of the information before it, there is nothing to indicate that there are substantial grounds for fearing that the compl ainant would be at a real and personal risk of torture if returned to the Gambia. His claims and the evidence submitted give insufficient reason to believe that his deportation would expose him to a real, concrete and personal risk of being tortured, and h is deportation would therefore not constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s submission 5.1 On 4 May 2012, the complainant submitted his comments. He refutes the State party’s argument that he would need either to have been tortured in the Gambia in the past or to have been politically active in order to qualify for protection under article 3 of the Convention. He maintains that it is sufficient to have well -founded fears of being subjected to torture in the event of refoulement to his country of origin. 5.2 He adds that the State party has unfortunately remained unconvinced of his credibility and the accuracy of his statements even though his explanations concerning the reasons for his departure and the circumstances of his flight have never changed. He provided authentic documents to prove his identity but the State party made no effort to check their validity with the Swiss Embassy in Senegal, as he asked it to do on several occasions. He recalls that he explained the minor inconsistencies identified by the authorities in his statements but that the authorities did not accept his explanations. 5.3 The author reiterates that, contrary to the State party’s assertions, his return to the Gambia would indeed be a violation of article 3 of the Convention. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any complaint submitted in a communication, the Committee against Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.2 The Committee considers that the communication has been substantiated for purposes of admissibility, and the Committee notes that the State party has not contested the admissibility of the communication. 6.3 Accordingly, the Committee finds that no obstacles to the admissibility of the communication exist and thus declares it admissible. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties concerned, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention. 7.2 The issue before the Committee is whether the removal of the complainant to the Gambia would constitute a violation of the State party’s obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or to return a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. The Committee must therefore determine whether there a re substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be in real, foreseeable and personal GE.15-11116 7/8